Virgin Train Derailment in Cumbria

Virgin Train Derailment in Cumbria

A Virgin train has derailed and slid down an embankment in Cumbria, witnesses say.
Witnesses said the train derailed before sliding down an embankment and a number of carriages were on their side. It is unclear if people were
injured.

It is understood the train was the 1750 GMT Virgin Train from London's Euston Station to Glasgow.

Joking aside, I hope all concerned are well. Report's from inside the train by trapped commuters indicate the train possibly hit something and now
almost all the carriages are derailed. Having said that, many appear to have only superficial injuries, bumps and cuts mainly. There are reports of
some more serious injuries, but mainly spinal.

Services between Preston and Carlisle were suspended
A passenger is reported to have died and dozens have been injured after a train derailed and slid down an embankment in Cumbria.
Ambulance crews said three were in a critical condition in hospital.

This accident actually demonstrate just how safe modern trains are - imagine coming off the motorway in a car at 95mph and walking away with a slight
bruise .....

Most of the passengers had only very minor injuries. Sadly one elderly lady later died in hospital (cause not known). But looking at the wreckage
and knowing how fast the train was travelling one can only say "how come dozens more weren't killed?"

Well done to the locals and the emergency services for a quick and efficent response.

The authors of the report for the Rail Safety and Standards Board say train managers are working under a false assumption that ever-increasing
investment in safety gadgets will satisfy the public.

...

They point out that the incidence of fatal train crashes has been going down steadily from 8.8 a year in the 1940s (see chart) to 1 a year so far this
century. Contrary to popular opinion, they say, fewer people have died in the 9 years since rail privatisation (97) compared with the nine years
before privatisation (127).

Sourced from 'The Economist', 2001 -

igreens.org.uk
...
A striking example is the government's commitment to massive safety investment on the railways. The policy is in line with the recommendations of the
joint safety inquiry following the Southall and Ladbroke Grove crashes. The inquiry recommended that the "advanced train protection system" should
be installed across the network saving, possibly, an average of two lives a year at a cost of £2 billion - roughly 200 times more than is spent on
preventing a road death (see table below).

...

Despite popular myths about the effects of privatisation, rail travel is getting safer. Research by Andrew Evans, professor of transport safety at
University college, London, shows that fatal train accidents per billion train-kilometres have consistently declined from 11 a year in 1967 to three a
year in 2000.

The problem with saying this is an argument for the privatisation is that that was 40(?) years ago, and therefore there will have been improved
technology since then, for example nowadays I have heard of plans to signal trains with GPS, rather than mechanical systems.

On another note, there were loads of railways before privatisation, and they would of come in very useful for getting rid of these lack of public
transport to help combat greenhouse gases.

On topic, it is sad that one person died, but looking at the wreckage and the fact that it almost completely derailed, it could have been a lot worse.

This is the first serious rail accident of this type for a long while. We do get a few accidents involving trains hitting cars on level crossings in
rural areas though ....

Yeah, agrees, but, just goes to show that they have not learned from previous train crashes to sort out the problem, which caused the train crash in
the first place. Thank Gd that there wasnt more fatalities, (Sympathy goes out to that lady's family in glasgow who died), When will the company
who owns the network or rail in the UK buck up their ideas...............

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.